High Court Kerala High Court

V.R.Ojes vs The Assistant General Manager … on 7 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
V.R.Ojes vs The Assistant General Manager … on 7 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32939 of 2007(U)


1. V.R.OJES, PMC XI/353, KARTHIKA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (RECOVERY)
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.SAGEER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :07/11/2007

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ===============
                 W.P.(C) NO. 32939 OF 2007 U
               =====================

          Dated this the 7th day of November, 2007

                         J U D G M E N T

The auction sale conducted by the respondent has been

confirmed in the petitioner’s favour. Ext.P2 is the conditions of

the sale and clause 16 of Ext.P2 provides that the successful

bidder shall pay 25% of the bid amount within 10 days from the

date of confirmation of the sale and that the balance amount

shall be paid within 30 days from the date of confirmation.

Petitioner submits that by Ext.P1 dated 24th October 2007, sale

has been confirmed in his favour, but however, he has been

asked to deposit the full sale consideration, although his

obligation is only to pay 25% within 10 days.. This is the

complaint of the petitioner and he seeks time as contemplated in

Clause 16 of the tender conditions.

2. I heard the standing counsel for the respondent also.

3. It is pointed out on behalf of the respondent that in

the absence of averment of having complied with deposit of 25%

of the bid amount, the petitioner would not have deposited 25%

within the time specified in Ext.P2 and hence petitioner cannot be

WPC 32939/07
: 2 :

given any relief. I do not find any merit in the objection raised

by the respondent for the reason that petitioner was not

permitted to deposit 25% in terms of Clause 16 while issuing

Ext.P1. As against the tender conditions, he was called upon to

deposit 100%. Therefore even if he has not deposited 25% as

per Clause 16, on receipt of Ext.P1, petitioner cannot be faulted.

4. In view of this, I am inclined to dispose of this writ

petition with the following directions.

That the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the bid amount

within 15 days from today and that the balance amount shall be

paid within 30 days from today. If he makes remittance as

directed, the sale of which has been confirmed in his favour shall

be transferred to him.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp